Is there evidence that Jesus Christ existed? Yes, there is.

I keep seeing this claim by many members that there are no records outside of the bible that prove Jesus existed or that he was executed/crucified by Pontius Pilate. The fact is, there are such documents, and here I will mention some of them.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian and Senator who detested both Christians and Jews. He wrote a series of books named "the Annals" which dealt mainly with the fire that nearly burned all of Rome in 64 AD.

In book 15 chapter 44 Tacitus wrote:

In his Annals, Tacitus tells of a fire that swept through Rome in the 60s, for which some were blaming Nero himself...

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

www.mesacc.edu...

The accounts of Pliny the Younger.(63 - 113 A.D)

In the following letter Pliny the Younger admits to torturing Christians, and he mentions how those who denied to be Christian cursed the Christ.

...

Those who denied that they were or ever had been Christians, when they swore before me, called on the gods and offered incense and wine to your image (which I had ordered brought in for this [purpose], along with images of the gods), and also cursed Christ (which, it is said, it is impossible to force those who are real Christians to do) I thought worthy to be acquitted. Others named by an informer, said they had been Christians, but now denied [it]; certainly they had been, but had lapsed, some three years ago, some more; and more than one [lit. not nobody] over twenty years ago. These all worshiped both your image and the images of the gods and cursed Christ.
...

www.tyrannus.com...

There were attempts by early non-Christian authors, including Romans, to discredit Jesus, and false stories were made, including one made by Celsus (circa 178 AD) in which he claimed Jesus' father was a Roman soldier.

...
Celsus was a friend of Lucien of Samosata, who was Syrian rhetorician and satirist.

While none of Celsus' original writings have survived intact, the following passages from Alethès Lógos were quoted by the 3rd century Christian theologian Origen in his eight-volume work Contra Celsum or Katà Kélsou (248 AD), meaning "Against Celsus", for the purpose of refuting Celsus' claims. A copy of Alethès Lógos had been found by Ambrosius and was sent to his friend Origen with a request to refute it.

"Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by working with her hands [spinning]. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthera (i. 32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god."
...

cameltranslations.blogspot.com...

Lucian of Samosata (120 - 180 A.D.)

Lucian was a satirist who often ridiculed Christians and Jesus.

...
The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day- the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account...

link

Why would pagan, including Roman, scholars try to discredit a man who didn't exist?

There are other ancient texts, and ancient historians who mention Jesus existence. Including the Talmud, the main text of the Jewish faith, which at first also had many denigrating comments about Jesus and his mother Mary.
These stories were later changed so as not to insult Christians. These changes were mainly done in Medieval times, although there were earlier Christian censorships, for example in 521, due to many of the passages in the Tamud being insulting of Jesus and his mother Mary.

That isn't evidence of Jesus' existence, at least not as the supernatural, 'son of god' that Christians believe in. Christus was a title, not a name, and was given to many people, and 'Jesus' (actually Yeshua) was one of the most (if not the most) common male names in that area in and around the first century. Nice try, but no....

Someone will be along shortly to explain why people writing about something they have never seen from before they are born doesn't make evidence that a story is true.

BTW Cornelius Tacitus was born 56AD

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Do you have any proof of that? Where did you hear/real that 'Yeshua was one of the most (if not the most) common male names'?

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Really? so there were other Christus who started Christianity, and were crucified by order of Pontius Pilate?...

Do you actually have "proof" of this?

a reply to: IndependentOpinion

Archaeologists have unearthed the tombs of 71 Yeshuas from the period of Jesus' death. The name also appears 30 times in the Old Testament in reference to four separate characters—including a descendent of Aaron who helped to distribute offerings of grain (2 Chronicles 31:15) and a man who accompanied former captives of Nebuchadnezzar back to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:2).

The long version of the name, Yehoshua, appears another few hundred times, referring most notably to the legendary conqueror of Jericho (and the second most famous bearer of the name). So why do we call the Hebrew hero of Jericho Joshua and the Christian Messiah Jesus? Because the New Testament was originally written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. Greeks did not use the sound sh, so the evangelists substituted an S sound. Then, to make it a masculine name, they added another S sound at the end.

link

a reply to: IndependentOpinion

Because it actually was, there is no denial about this among Christian scholars.
The fact that it was a common name is also in question in supposed Jesus Tomb find.
Link

[edit for double post]

a reply to: Grimpachi

Cornelius was a Roman historian who was describing facts... He wasn't even Christian, yet he wrote that Christus did exist, and his followers were named Christians after his name and was put to the extreme penalty, which was crucifixion by orders of Pontius Pilate.

Here is a link to a book which describes that "extreme penalty" was crucifixion.


cruc ifixion as the Supreme Roman Penalty

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Have you even read the links you supply? I find it hard to believe that you have and instead think you're merely looking for the earliest references by non Christians to Christ. The reason I ask is that I actually did read through your referenced citations and your last one is titled

Why Lucian's View of the Christians and Jesus is Indeterminate

Indeterminate- not exactly known, established, or defined.

"the date of manufacture is indeterminate"


synonyms: undetermined, uncertain, unknown, unspecified, unstipulated, indefinite, unfixed

That means that Lucian's opinions on Christians and Christ are baseless if you're having a tough time processing it all.

Lucian by no means was an expert on Christianity. If we take his writings at face value, his insights into Christianity could be bunk considering that he was not well versed in their teachings. Knowing things from hearsay is much different than actually being a member of a group. If anything, Lucian's writings expose any prejudices that may have existed concerning the Christians and Jesus not actual facts about them. For actual viewpoints of Christians it is best to stay with reading the texts written by the Christians themselves. Lucian does confirm the Christians and Jesus, but how much of Lucian's view can be taken to be accurate?

The one before that, allegedly attributed to Celsus is a 2nd hand hearsay quote off of a blog. The hearsay quote is from 248 CE, over 200 years after the alleged crucifixion. Not quite a contemporary or first hand source is it?

While Pliny the Younger does provide a first hand source, its not remotely contemporary. It is proof that Christians existed at the beginning of the 2nd century CE but it is not proof of the actual existence of Jesus. In actual context, which you wouldn't attempt because it disperses your intended sermon, what Pliny writes about in his letters to Emperor Trajan, is a request for counsel on how to treat Christians he has tortured, tried and found guilty of being Christians. These letters were written in 112 CE, 80 years after the alleged crucifixion. Again, not contemporary at all. The same goes for Pliny's friend and confidant, Tacitus. His writings are from the same period. Not anything remotely contemporary that would be considered proof of life. They are nothing more than proof of a group of people calling themselves Christians who were a bane to the empire. Nothing resembling proof of the existence of Christ.

Please cite a contemporary source that provides evidence of Christ and his supernatural abilities and I will promptly apologize and admit my error in refusing to acknowledge your lord and savior, true son of god, magician of Judea.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

And he was born 56AD so anything he wrote about wasn't even second-hand information.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I see people will believe anything 'scientists' tell them if it goes against religion.

In the hebrew world back then, and still today, they believed in meaning of names. There would not be many people with a name holding the meaning of Yahweh Saves, because there was one one Man permitted to carry that meaning in His name.

There was a man with the name Yoshua (modernday Joshua) whos name was incorrectly translated to Jesus, but his name was not Yehosua. Its errors in translations that gave rise to this notion of 'more than one Jesus'. Learning and studying original hebrew will show you that.

originally posted by: IndependentOpinion
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Do you have any proof of that? Where did you hear/real that 'Yeshua was one of the most (if not the most) common male names'?

www.slate.com...

Many people shared the name. Christ's given name, commonly Romanized as Yeshua, was quite common in first-century Galilee. (Jesus comes from the transliteration of Yeshua into Greek and then English.) Archaeologists have unearthed the tombs of 71 Yeshuas from the period of Jesus' death. The name also appears 30 times in the Old Testament in reference to four separate characters—including a descendent of Aaron who helped to distribute offerings of grain (2 Chronicles 31:15) and a man who accompanied former captives of Nebuchadnezzar back to Jerusalem (Ezra 2:2).

en.wikipedia.org...(name)

Yeshua (ישוע, with vowel pointing יֵשׁוּעַ – yēšūă‘ in Hebrew)[1] was a common alternative form of the name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ ("Yehoshuah" – Joshua) in later books of the Hebrew Bible and among Jews of the Second Temple period. The name corresponds to the Greek spelling Iesous, from which, through the Latin Iesus, comes the English spelling Jesus

a reply to: Grimpachi

Your link above do not mention any of the "other" Yeshuas" as having been crucified in the time of Pontious Pilate, and starting a religion called Christianity.

Do you not see the difference?

a reply to: Grimpachi

Even at the time that he was born if Jesus was fictitious Tacitus would have described him so. Yet Tacitus doesn't do that, even though he was not Christian his references of "history" includes that Jesus did exist, was crucified under the orders of Pontius Pilate, and his followers were called Christians after his name.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

That isn't evidence of Jesus' existence, at least not as the supernatural, 'son of god' that Christians believe in.

So what? That isn't the argument. Most Christians will concede that believing Jesus was the Son of God is a matter of faith. Historians on the other hand, almost unanimously admit that the man named Jesus (whom the new testament is centered on) most certainly existed as a historical figure. That goes for the majority of non Christian historians, too.

Christus was a title, not a name

So is "Christ". Did you think Christ was supposed to be Jesus last name? "Christus" is the latin translation of the greek χριστός (Christos), which means "anointed one" or "messiah", a transliteration of the hebrew המשיח ( Ha Mashiach, which also means "anointed one" or "messiah" in Hebrew).

'Jesus' (actually Yeshua) was one of the most (if not the most) common male names in that area in and around the first century.

What is your point? Abraham is also a common name, but only one Abraham was a U.S president that was assassinated in a theater. Tacitus specifically confirms Pontius Pilate as being the man that crucified Jesus (the same thing the gospels report) and confirms "Christus" as the founder of Christianity. Are you trying to imply this is somehow not the same individual the Gospels were written about?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

And he was born 56AD so anything he wrote about wasn't even second-hand information.

As a Roman historian, Tacitus would have been using roman records and materials as sources, not hearsay from Christians and Jews. This is especially apparent when one considers the fact the Romans viewed Christianity as an abomination to their Gods, and sought to extinguish it in it's formative years. Why on earth would a Roman historian report on the crucifixion of Jesus if it would only support the Christian narrative? Would the romans not simply step forth and declare the entire thing a work of fiction if that were the case?

Wouldn't the Jews do the same? Yet we find the most vocal critics of Christianity never make an effort to deny the existence of Christ within the 1st and 2nd centuries. Instead, we find them declaring Jesus to be a trickster and a charlatan, and instead of attacking the notion of whether or not he existed, they attack his character, and whether or not he was divine.

a reply to: IndependentOpinion

I see people will believe anything 'scientists' tell them if it goes against religion.

People believe science when it is backed up with evidence.

With religion people believe a book because it tells them too.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Grimpachi

Even at the time that he was born if Jesus was fictitious Tacitus would have described him so. Yet Tacitus doesn't do that, even though he was not Christian his references of "history" includes that Jesus did exist, was crucified under the orders of Pontius Pilate, and his followers were called Christians after his name.

Tacitus also wrote about Hercules like he was a real person.

So you must also believe Hercules was a son of god.

I bet I know who was stronger.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Then why do you not believe the science which is used to support the historicity of Jesus? There is an entire science behind historical credibility, textual criticism and analysis, etc. There is a reason we can date the earliest Christian writings to within 20 years of Christ's crucifixion and that the mention of Christ by tacitus is believed to be genuine and unbiased. This isn't just religious hocus pocus, or there wouldn't be non christian historians who support the idea.

No, I think it's clear you are ignoring the bulk of the evidence in favor of your bias.